Liebman v Liebman and Others (22282/19) [2019] ZAGPPHC 227 (6 June 2019)
The applicant failed to prove the existence of a partnership with the first respondent. The evidence established that the parties operated through companies and trusts, which are distinct legal entities with their own assets and liabilities. The applicant did not demonstrate that he and the first respondent carried out transactions together as partners or shared profits and losses in the manner required by law. The absence of a written agreement, the lack of partnership assets, and the inability to identify any business or undertaking conducted by the alleged partnership were fatal to the applicant's case. The court found that the applicant's attempt to treat the companies and trusts as...
- Citation
- [2019] ZAGPPHC 227
- Parties
- Applicant: Atholl David Victor Liebman; Respondent: Bradley Brett Liebman; Respondent: Bradley Breit Liebman N.O.; Respondent: Alfredo Figueiredo Pereira Campos; Respondent: Alfredo Figueiredo Pereira Campos N.O.; Respondent: Campos Attorneys; Respondent: Pollock Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Golden Wedge Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ken Liebman Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Atherb Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Villa Rivage (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nyakaza Property Development (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Panaway Property Development (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Great Space Trading (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Our Garden Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sweet Loft Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gold Alias Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited; Respondent: Standard Bank Limited; Respondent: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Mercantile Bank Limited; Respondent: Investec Bank Limited a division of First Rand Bank Limited
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 6 June 2019
- Case Number
- 22282/19
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Final Judgment After Interim Order
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
- Judges
- PM Mabuse
- Legal Topics
- Partnership Formation, Tacit Contract, Corporate Veil, Trust Property, Company Law Separate Personality
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Atholl David Victor Liebman
Applicant
Bradley Brett Liebman
Respondent
Bradley Breit Liebman N.O.
Respondent
Alfredo Figueiredo Pereira Campos
Respondent
Alfredo Figueiredo Pereira Campos N.O.
Respondent
Campos Attorneys
Respondent
Pollock Properties (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Golden Wedge Properties (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Ken Liebman Properties (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Atherb Investments (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Villa Rivage (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Nyakaza Property Development (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Panaway Property Development (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Great Space Trading (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Our Garden Properties (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Sweet Loft Properties (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Gold Alias Investments (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
ABSA Bank Limited
Respondent
Standard Bank Limited
Respondent
Nedbank Limited
Respondent
Mercantile Bank Limited
Respondent
Investec Bank Limited a division of First Rand Bank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment After Interim Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a partnership exists between the applicant and the first respondent.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order dissolving the alleged partnership.
- 3 Whether the ancillary relief sought is appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to prove the existence of a partnership with the first respondent. The evidence established that the parties operated through companies and trusts, which are distinct legal entities with their own assets and liabilities. The applicant did not demonstrate that he and the first respondent carried out transactions together as partners or shared profits and losses in the manner required by law. The absence of a written agreement, the lack of partnership assets, and the inability to identify any business or undertaking conducted by the alleged partnership were fatal to the applicant's case. The court found that the applicant's attempt to treat the companies and trusts as...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Orders
- The interim order obtained by the applicant on 8 March 2019 is discharged.
- The applicant’s application is dismissed with costs, including costs consequent upon employment of two counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment